Thursday, July 06, 2006

From Seymour Hersh’s latest on the Pentagon’s efforts to avert a disastrous attack on Iran:

“The military leadership is also raising tactical arguments against the proposal for bombing Iran, many of which are related to the consequences for Iraq. According to retired Army Major General William Nash, who was commanding general of the First Armored Division, served in Iraq and Bosnia, and worked for the United Nations in Kosovo, attacking Iran would heighten the risks to American and coalition forces inside Iraq. ‘What if one hundred thousand Iranian volunteers came across the border?’ Nash asked. ‘If we bomb Iran, they cannot retaliate militarily by air – only on the ground or by sea, and only in Iraq or the Gulf. A military planner cannot discount that possibility, and he cannot make an ideological assumption that the Iranians wouldn’t do it. We’re not talking about victory or defeat – only about what damage Iran could do to our interests.’ Nash, now a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, said, ‘Their first possible response would be to send forces into Iraq. And, since the Iraqi Army has limited capacity, it means that the coalition forces would have to engage them.’”

and:

“In contrast, some conservatives are arguing that America’s position in Iraq would improve if Iran chose to retaliate there, according to a government consultant with close ties to the Pentagon’s civilian leaders, because Iranian interference would divide the Shiites into pro- and anti-Iranian camps, and unify the Kurds and the Sunnis. The Iran hawks in the White House and the State Department, including Elliott Abrams and Michael Doran, both of whom are National Security Council advisers on the Middle East, also have an answer for those who believe that the bombing of Iran would put American soldiers in Iraq at risk, the consultant said. He described the counterargument this way: ‘Yes, there will be Americans under attack, but they are under attack now.’”

The idea, if you can believe it, is that an attack on Iran would be a good thing as it would provoke Iranian interference in Iraq, which would accelerate the Zionist goal of breaking Iraq up into three parts. They are not even trying to hide their goal any more. The fact that many more American soldiers – not to mention Iraqis – will end up dead is of no matter to the Zionist civilians in the Pentagon.

Hersh’s article obviously is Pentagon spin, and makes the Pentagon warmongers look a little too heroic. Fortunately, informed Israeli opinion is against the attack on Iran, so the efforts by the Jewish billionaires club and its employees in the American government will come to nought. The lack of unanimity makes the warmongering for an attack on Iran much less powerful than the warmongering had been for an attack on Iraq. Syria, on the other hand, is in grave danger. Note how Olmert is simultaneously collectively punishing Gaza civilians, as if Hamas in Gaza is responsible for the taking of the prisoner of war, and making bellicose moves concerning Syria, on the theory that the kidnapping was the work of Palestinians sheltered in Damascus. He can’t have it both ways. To the great disappointment of Israel and the White House Zionists, Syria dodged the frame-up when Mehlis was replaced by an honest prosecutor, but Syria is still being set up for regime change, almost certainly involving American troops. Syria is next on the check-list of what the Zionists are going to force Americans to do for Israel.